From article National Conservatism,
Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism. John Fonte. July 2024. Section 2.
[From previous article section 1:
Modern American
conservatism can be broken into three waves.
The first wave, symbolized by William F.
Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, lasted from the mid-1950s to the late 1980s
early 1990s end of the Cold War.
The second wave, symbolized by Paul Ryan
and the two Bush presidencies, ran from the 1990s to 2016.
The third wave, symbolized by Jeff Sessions
and Donald Trump, is ongoing.]
…
The general
view of FreeCon critics of National Conservatism seems to be NatCons depart
radically from the first-wave conservative principles of Buckley and Reagan.
But to a
significant extent, NatCons seem closer in spirit to the legacy of first-wave
conservatism than the FreeCons.
For instance, there was a nationalist-populist overtone to
the Reagan victory in 1980.
As Irving
Kristol put it: “Reagan . . . came out of the West riding a horse, not a golf
cart, speaking in the kind of nationalist-populist tonalities not heard since
Teddy Roosevelt, appealing to large sections of the working class.”
In 1980, the
Big Business-oriented Republican establishment—a similar establishment to the
one that now looks askance at Trump’s populist MAGA movement—considered Reagan
unreliable and preferred George H.W. Bush, John Connally, Howard Baker, and
Robert Dole.
…
In the
mid-1950s, fusionist Frank Meyer regretted the terms “‘nationalist,’ even
‘patriot’ [had] become terms of reproach.”
Buckley himself
famously sounded a strong populist note when he declared he would rather be
ruled by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone book than by the
faculty of Harvard University.
First-wave
conservatism did not embrace anything like the neo-con foreign policy views of
second-wave conservatism.
Buckley’s National Review advocated
anti-Soviet Communism, not the worldwide promotion of democracy.
Indeed, the
magazine supported undemocratic leaders such as Franco in Spain, Trujillo in
the Dominican Republic, and Salazar in Portugal.
…
Reagan worked with undemocratic forces
including the Argentine military, Communist China, the Afghan Mujahedeen,
Savimbi in Angola, and Somoza elements within the Nicaraguan Contras.
To be sure,
Reagan withdrew support for undemocratic allies in the Philippines and South
Korea, and later put more emphasis on the ideological struggle between
democracy and Soviet Communism, endorsing the creation of the National
Endowment for Democracy.
But even that
was within the context of the Cold War and was focused on opposing the Soviet
threat.
…
Nor was the
Buckley-Reagan era one of unalloyed laissez faire on immigration and trade.
National Review
supported the McCarran-Walter Act to restrict immigration.
In 1986, Reagan hoped to achieve a grand bargain in
immigration policy—he agreed to amnesty for three million illegal immigrants in
return for enhanced border security.
We all know how
that turned out: amnesty first, followed by continued weak enforcement.
…
Reagan
negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada, but he also used tariffs when he
believed them to be in America’s interest.
William
Niskanen, who served on Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, said “the Reagan administration imposed more new
restraints on trade than any administration since Hoover.”
Overall, the
share of American imports covered by trade restrictions increased under Reagan
from eight percent in 1975 to 21 percent by 1984.
…
The key
difference between NatCons and FreeCons has to do with the character of the
current political struggle against progressives on the Left.
FreeCons
believe we are mainly involved in policy arguments.
FreeCon
signatory Yuval Levin, for instance, writes our divisions are a family argument
between two forms of liberalism: progressive liberalism and conservative
liberalism—we are not, he assures us, in a “political fight to the death.”
NatCons, on the
other hand, generally believe we are involved in what the late Angelo Codevilla
called a “Cold Civil War”—or as third
waver Victor Davis Hanson has put it, we are in an “existential war for the
soul of America.”
…
Here, too,
NatCons seem to be closer in spirit to first-wave conservatives.
Early National
Review senior editor Willmoore Kendall, for instance, wrote since liberalism
“seeks a change of regime, the replacement of one regime by another, of a
different type altogether, it is, quite simply, revolutionary.”
Kendall asks:
“Is the destiny of America the Liberal Revolution or is it the destiny
envisaged for it by the Founders of our Republic?”
And Buckley’s
closest advisor, James Burnham, wrote in his book Suicide of the West that “the principal function of modern liberalism”
is to facilitate the suicide of Western Civilization.
This suicide
would be rationalized “by the light of the principles of liberalism, not as a
final defeat, but as a transition to a new and higher order in which Mankind as
a whole joins in a universal civilization.”
…
In his campaign
against woke progressivism in Florida, Governor DeSantis is perhaps best known
for his conflict with the Walt Disney Corporation.
The drama of a
Republican governor in a serious conflict with a major corporation in his state
over core principles highlights the difference between second- and third-wave
conservatives.
In 1967, at the
request of Walt Disney himself, the Florida
legislature passed a law that gave the Disney Corporation its own autonomous
local government, with an independent tax district and its own board of
supervisors.
It was exempt
from many state and local environmental rules, building codes, and development
restrictions.
According to
The Wall Street Journal, “Disney saved tens of millions of dollars a year by
avoiding paying certain county and state taxes and fees.”
…
When these
benefits were granted, the Disney Corporation was a stalwart promoter of
popular middle class American patriotism.
But by the
2020s it had become an active supporter of the woke revolution.
Under pressure
from its employees, Disney denounced and lobbied against DeSantis’ Parental
Rights in Education Act that prohibited instruction on sexual orientation and
gender identity to children from kindergarten to third grade.
In response, DeSantis and the state legislature established
a state oversight board that ended Disney’s control over the district.
Disney sued the
state but ultimately lost.
…
Second-wave
conservatives like Nikki Haley and Mike Pence criticized DeSantis on
ideological grounds.
Haley invited
Disney to relocate to South Carolina, declaring, “We don’t need government
fighting against our private industries.”
DeSantis replied Haley represented the
“corporate element” in the GOP.
“We need to
stand up for the people,” he said.
“The days of
Republicans just deferring to large corporations . . . need to be over.”
…
For his part,
Pence charged DeSantis “turned his back on the principles that make our country
great,” presumably referring to the principles of the American Founding.
We cannot, of
course, know with certainty what the Founders would have done.
But we can
speculate with the help of Hillsdale Politics Professor Thomas West.
In his book The
Political Theory of the American Founding, West examined state constitutions
and laws of the period.
He discovered the
Founders were vigorous in their promotion of a natural rights (rather than a
libertarian) view of the common good.
In practice,
that meant enacting laws that sustained
the moral order rather than assuming a strictly “hands off” approach to the
private sector.
…
Let us
speculate in 18th century Massachusetts or Virginia there was a powerful
corporation that controlled its own local government, had its own board of
supervisors, made its own rules and regulations, and had a more favorable tax
situation than other corporations.
In addition,
this corporation exercised undue influence in the politics and culture of the
state and recently promoted manners and mores that undermined the principles
and beliefs of the majority of citizens.
Unlike the
Haley-Pence view corporations are somehow sacrosanct, it would not surprise us
if an 18th century Massachusetts or
Virginia state government would have responded as DeSantis did, acting in the
name of republican government and the common good, by ending the
corporation’s special fiefdom.
…
The Disney
controversy helps to clarify a core difference between second- and third-wave
conservatism.
Second wavers
argue civil society and culture generally must be neutral zones free of any
governmental or overt political influence.
Third wavers see culture as crucial, because
they believe it is critical to the struggle for ideological hegemony.
…
I will conclude
with a recommendation on terminology that could become the basis for a new
conservative fusionism.
The conflict
today is not simply a normal policy argument between conservatives and
progressives.
It is over the
future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture.
Therefore,
-those who
affirm the American nation—whether they are NatCons, FreeCons, or patriotic
liberals should be called Americanists.
-those who find
our inheritance deeply problematic and seek a revolutionary transformation of
the American regime should be called
Transformationists.
Today’s
polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists
and Transformationists.
(end of section
2 and article)
… …
“Today’s
polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists
and Transformationists.”
Personally would
add … and Celestial Transcendentalization Activationists.
This article
illustrates the scientific delirium madness mish-mash complexity of the current
polity and society we live in.
We now just
must change, see through mist, simplify and then turn and say “bye-bye” to
missing American PIE.
From HAT
Manifesto Part 1:
WHAT to do and
change now?
1-Increase not
decrease populations
In free market
capitalist societies people produce more than they consume, these are profits
tHAT generate ever-more production, ever more wealth, and ever-higher living
standards.
Oll socialists
desire a smaller population which be poorer and easier to keep under thumb on
floor.
Zat anti-happy
pro-misery goal fundamentally be the real thought or felt reason among dem
omrondles for zeir anti-dance, anti-chance, anti-small-faces-joy choice stance.
2-Substantially
lower all taxes 25% or more
This will
create budget deficits in the short run but in the short run and long run will
result in a boom economy and in the long run generate huge budget surpluses to
be mostly paid out as CSD Citizens’ Shareholder Dividends to All us.
3-Unilaterally
open the U.S. to unrestricted imports
Increased
imports result is the same result as from technological advances (more quantity
and variety, lower prices) and is the same as among our current 50 states.
As U.S. living
standards zoom up energized pro-happy Citizens Of All States Together around
the world will thereafter force their governments to make the same change.
4-Turn to and
ring HATtrack/Deism chimes
HAT totality
summary be: positive-negative-quark HATomic philosophy, micro-government
libertarianism, Citizens’ Shareholder Dividend guaranteed millions of dollars
income, and direct god-worship HATtrack deism.
All rising
Call-To-Action from deep foundation libertarian-HATomic philosophy-deist We RR
Real Republican New World Party Schöpfers and HATrs drunk with fire shout
bye-bye to fear, doubt, and missing American PIE.
We climb
stairs, race round squares, then fly tHAT PIE desiderhatum ship up into New and
blue places in there then celebrate out here in space.
We C They All
Call-To-Action Celestial Transcendentalization
Activation
CTA 102 run
o’er to C-O-A-S-T, sing the verse, then go out into universe and permeate
American Positive Intergalactic Energy.
(The Byrds
songs, Change Is Now, Chimes of Freedom, Fifth Dimension, Eight Miles High, CTA-102,
and Don McLean’s American Pie)
Comments
Post a Comment